Does the sovereign nation- state have enough tools to control the excesses of globalization?
The sovereign state is facing contemporary challenges brought about by the globalization. The acceleration of globalization in the late twentieth century has severely destabilized the traditional structure of a state and the authority of governments. The destabilization implies that governments are “losing control both in domestic and international affairs as an increasing number of human activities are now escaping regulation and spinning out of control” . While these challenges have indeed tested than state’s ability to deal with new emerging problems, the sovereign state is still the only entity able to control the outcomes of the globalization.
In this paper I will demonstrate that despite the concerns raised by some legal scholars that the state apparatus can no longer regulate the cross-border activities effectively, the sovereign state has enough tools to control the excesses of globalization. I will show that the proposed substitutes for the state power lack the ability to perform the function of a state. In the first part of the paper I will discuss the traditional notion of the state sovereignty. The second part will cover the problems introduced by globalization. In the third part the possible substitutes for the state power will be identified.
My argument about the state’s ability to control the excesses of globalization requires explanation of the traditional notion of state sovereignty and the evolution of this concept. I will begin with the explanation of the present system of international relations, which is known as the Westphalian World Order and I will identify the main features of that system.
The traditional concept of state sovereignty
“The principle that independent states’, each recognizing the other’s judicial autonomy and territorial integrity, should co-exist in a single political system was established for the first time under Dutch hegemony by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648” . When it was first established under Dutch hegemony, the principle of national sovereignty was meant to regulate relations among the States of Western Europe . Although the signatories of the Treaty had only the peace of Europe as their ultimate objective, as the Europe expanded in the next three centuries the European Order became the World Order, which was based on the “state system” .
The “state system” replaced the imperial-ecclesiastical authority that prevailed in pre-Westphalian Europe and brought to an end the long and bloody Thirty Years War in Europe . The basic principle of this “state system” was the sovereignty of individual nation-states, sovereignty being defined as supreme power against which there is no appeal. Till today the present system of international relations is known to legal scholars as the Westphalian World Order.
According to some legal scholars, the successful existence of the Westphalian World Order is based on certain structure that allowed the system to function efficiently. This structure developed slowly over three and a half centuries and was never consolidated into one single document .
The first observation is that the national governments are the sole holders of legal sovereignty. The notion of sovereignty has a long history and there have been many debates on the sources of sovereignty. But whatever the source is, sovereignty became the “ absolute reference point in global relations” . In other words, the only rightful owners of this state sovereignty were the governments of the recognized nations .
National governments are not only legally sovereign but are the most powerful players on the world stage . This implies the freedom of action of a state in relation to other states .
The sovereignty of nations expressed itself through the control of geographical territory . Land was the principal factor and its control yielded both economic and political power .
The only enforceable international law is hat based on treaties between sovereign states . The only real international law was that derived from the treaties. This type if international law merely re-affirmed the primacy of sovereignty since no sovereign country could be forced to accept what it had not consented to .
From what has been said above, it is clear that the term sovereignty has evoluted with the time. And this term is used to refer to a number of different, though interrelated concepts. Today, the international system is based on sovereign states that act in accordance with international law.
As I have given the details of state sovereignty, I will move on to describe the changes that have occurred in the middle of the last century since 1945, under the name of globalization.
The emergence of globalization
The term globalization has been used in may occasions to describe the novelty of the changes that have occurred since 1960’s .Globalization broadly refers to the expansion of global linkages, the organization of social life on a global scale, and the growth of global consciousness, hence to the consolidation of the worlds society . Despite the widespread use of this concept, the definitions of globalization vary in the particular driving force they identify .
We have to understand, that globalization is historically complex, and the meaning of the term is itself a topic in global discussion. It
may refer to “real processes, to ideas that justify them, or to a way of thinking about them. And the term is not neutral: definitions express different assessments of global change” . The following definitions represent currently influential views:
· “the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before- in a way that is enabling the individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster and cheaper than ever before…the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world” .
· “The compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole…concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole in the twentieth century” .
“The historical transformation constituted by the sum of particular forms and instances of …making or being made global (I) by the active dissemination of practices, values, technology and other human products throughout the globe (ii) when global practices and so on exercise an increasing influence on people’s lives (iii) when the globe serves as a focus for, or a premise in shaping, human activities” .
“As experienced from below, the dominant form of globalization means a historical transformation: in the economy, of livehoods and modes of existence; in politics, a loss in the degree of control exercised locally…and in culture, a devaluation of collectivity’s achievements…Globalization is emerging as a political response to the expansion of market power…It is a domain of knowledge.”
From the definitions given above we can infer that globalization involves “transnational processes of interaction and interdependence” . These transnational processes increases economic, cultural, and ideological homogeneity as well ass the idea of solidarity, a qualitative acceleration of information flows, an interdependence of societies, a mobility of populations without borders . In this sense, globalization is the extension and accelerator of an ongoing process of transnationalization . It tends to increasingly exclude human, especially economic activities from the jurisdiction of the state and institutional regulation . As a result, the alleged inability of states to control the transnational processes is attributed to two major changes that occurred at the end of the Cold War.
The transformation from local processes to transnational processes is attributed to many factors. Although scholars present different views on this issue, all of them agree that there were two main factors that have both accelerated the process of globalization and have led to the doubts on the effectiveness of the traditional nation state. Even if they agree that information revolution and the expansion of markets were the main causes of globalization, they perceive them differently. The first of these factors, the telecommunications revolution will be discussed in the following paragraph.According to Matthews, “one of the changes introduced with the end of the Cold War was the computer and telecommunications revolution” . Widely accessible and affordable technology has broken down governments’ monopoly on the collection and management of large amounts of information and deprived governments of the deference they enjoyed because of it. These new technologies have changed people’s perceptions because the Internet “connected people across borders and separated them from natural and historical associations within nations” . Moreover, the “information technologies disrupted hierarchy and spread power among more people and groups” . As result, the states’ became merely passive observers, as they were no longer able to control the human activities escaping from their jurisdiction.
Many critics have pointed out that the state is not facing absolutely new challenges. According to Arrighi, the newness of the so called “information revolution is impressive, but the newness of the railroad and the telegraph, the automobile, the radio, and the telephone in their day impressed equally. Submarine telegraph cables from the 1860’s connected inter-continental markets. They made possible-day-to-day trading and price making across thousands of miles, a far greater innovation than the advent of the information technologies today” . And the state played a very active role not only by establishing rules governing trans-border trade but also by cooperating with other states in order to make the process as fluent as possible.